Our newest ambassador in the US,,
Discussion
Blue62 said:
I know it's going over old ground, but the fact is this was private mail, diplomats have to get straight to the point and I am sure that what he wrote is typical of the exchanges that commonly take place, nobody would imagine that the details of those exchanges would ever get into the public domain.
I'm seriously struggling to understand the motive behind this leak though, Brexit revenge has been mentioned or an attempt to damage our relations with the US, but that doesn't add up either. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
I imagine knowing Boris wouldn't back him and therefore would become a media target + the possibility of a weakened relationship with the US making Brexit less attractive would have been enough?I'm seriously struggling to understand the motive behind this leak though, Brexit revenge has been mentioned or an attempt to damage our relations with the US, but that doesn't add up either. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
tangerine_sedge said:
Ridgemont said:
I’m not sure where you are getting this from.
Isabel Oakeshott released the details. She has not clarified the source but it way more likely she was handed this directly than encryption being broken.
Sources close to Oakeshott seem to be indicating that the source was someone who wanted to payback for Brexit foot dragging.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/07/di...
Oakeshott should be forced to give up her source. This is a matter of national security.Isabel Oakeshott released the details. She has not clarified the source but it way more likely she was handed this directly than encryption being broken.
Sources close to Oakeshott seem to be indicating that the source was someone who wanted to payback for Brexit foot dragging.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/07/di...
I believe in the right of whistleblowers and journalists to keep their sources secret, but only for subjects which are in the public interest. This leak is to embarrass the government and damage relations and certainly not in the public interest.
It’s hardly national security though: it’s embarrassing for the government, and troubling from the point of view of the leak, and deeply unfortunate for the ambassador but frankly he was toast the minute DT got hold of it.
NNH said:
Time for a few facts. I'm a former civil servant, and I was fortunate enough to read the cables of some of our ambassadors and other diplomatic staff in the Middle East between 1994 and 1996. Our ambassadors pride themselves on (and are selected for) their independent thinking. I read some very bracing comments on assorted leaders and generals in the Middle East and beyond, which was very useful for policy back in London. However, the insight and opinion was provided in strict confidence, and naturally was covered by the Official Secrets Act.
Anyone who thinks Sir Kim has been "undiplomatic" by conveying his thoughts in private correspondence simply doesn't understand how our diplomatic service works. The key question is who leaked the correspondence, and why. My best guess is that one of Boris' sniveling little ar$e lickers did it, on the basis that chaos works for their proven liar of a leader.
Regrettably, Boris and his bellends have jeopardized the career of one of our finest diplomats for his usual tawdry political gain. The USA is entirely within its rights to demand that Sir Kim is replaced, unfortunately.
Interesting post but the last bit doesn't make sense to me. How does ''chaos'' advance Johnson's position and how would he have got his hands on the 'cable'? I'd have thought such communications would be internal (and privileged?) within the CS/FO, with ministers briefed by their CS secretaries but he's not even a minister any more...Anyone who thinks Sir Kim has been "undiplomatic" by conveying his thoughts in private correspondence simply doesn't understand how our diplomatic service works. The key question is who leaked the correspondence, and why. My best guess is that one of Boris' sniveling little ar$e lickers did it, on the basis that chaos works for their proven liar of a leader.
Regrettably, Boris and his bellends have jeopardized the career of one of our finest diplomats for his usual tawdry political gain. The USA is entirely within its rights to demand that Sir Kim is replaced, unfortunately.
As an aside whilst I total understand the need for candid communication, did the Ambassador really need to put “incompetent”, “inept” and “insecure” in official communications? It's hardly fvcking revelatory is it? No one read that and thought, ''Really? Wow. We must brief the minister!''.
Ridgemont said:
A lot of hyperbole over this. It’s probably a breach of section 3 of the official secrets act.
It’s hardly national security though: it’s embarrassing for the government, and troubling from the point of view of the leak, and deeply unfortunate for the ambassador but frankly he was toast the minute DT got hold of it.
Yes he was toast, but I disagree with you on the point of hyperbole. It's been said today that a leak of this nature and at this level is without precedent, it's directly resulted in the resignation of arguably our most important diplomat who has been used as a pawn in a political game. I wouldn't call any of that 'hyperbole' and would suggest it has some very sinister and worrying implications for all of us (that could be a bit of my own hyperbole). It’s hardly national security though: it’s embarrassing for the government, and troubling from the point of view of the leak, and deeply unfortunate for the ambassador but frankly he was toast the minute DT got hold of it.
The Guardian refers to the leaks as 'cables', others as 'personal email'. Is there an official line as to what was leaked yet? Presumably the CS uses a pretty secure system for 'cables' or was he using his gmail account? We were always told to imagine everything you write, read out in court before hitting send on anything!
fblm said:
The Guardian refers to the leaks as 'cables', others as 'personal email'. Is there an official line as to what was leaked yet? Presumably the CS uses a pretty secure system for 'cables' or was he using his gmail account? We were always told to imagine everything you write, read out in court before hitting send on anything!
This has nothing to do with Vince Cable.The Guardian are only doing this to damage the Lib Dems who are the TRUE party of remain. It's simply part of what will be a long campaign to discredit the Lib Dems as Labour move to present themselves as Remainers choice.
Vince may be many things but a traitor he is not.
They also have it in for Chukka too
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 10th July 16:48
fblm said:
The Guardian refers to the leaks as 'cables', others as 'personal email'. Is there an official line as to what was leaked yet? Presumably the CS uses a pretty secure system for 'cables' or was he using his gmail account? We were always told to imagine everything you write, read out in court before hitting send on anything!
From the earlier link, copied below ....“I should start by explaining the FCO telegram system. The communications are nowadays effectively encrypted emails, though still known as “telegrams”: to the Americans “cables”. They are widely distributed”.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/07/ki...
Lotobear said:
Everyone knows that Trump is inept but what was foolish was to go on written record expressing that view (when everyone already knows it) in an era when everything is able to 'get out'.
It was badly judged and has caused damage to the UK. Like Trump or not he's here and we need to manage the situation, bite our tongues, and wait for the next president to come along.
Did they know at the stage it was written? If not him then the wider administration? It was badly judged and has caused damage to the UK. Like Trump or not he's here and we need to manage the situation, bite our tongues, and wait for the next president to come along.
It's not bad judgement to do what he should be doing.
rfisher said:
I expect that the early resignation didn't affect the amount of his final pension at all.
Which will be enormous.
He probably leaked the emails himself to get out before the summer hols are over.
Trump was no doubt pissing him off.
You need to step away from the glue, my friend.Which will be enormous.
He probably leaked the emails himself to get out before the summer hols are over.
Trump was no doubt pissing him off.
Edited by rfisher on Wednesday 10th July 16:00
fblm said:
NNH said:
Time for a few facts. I'm a former civil servant, and I was fortunate enough to read the cables of some of our ambassadors and other diplomatic staff in the Middle East between 1994 and 1996. Our ambassadors pride themselves on (and are selected for) their independent thinking. I read some very bracing comments on assorted leaders and generals in the Middle East and beyond, which was very useful for policy back in London. However, the insight and opinion was provided in strict confidence, and naturally was covered by the Official Secrets Act.
Anyone who thinks Sir Kim has been "undiplomatic" by conveying his thoughts in private correspondence simply doesn't understand how our diplomatic service works. The key question is who leaked the correspondence, and why. My best guess is that one of Boris' sniveling little ar$e lickers did it, on the basis that chaos works for their proven liar of a leader.
Regrettably, Boris and his bellends have jeopardized the career of one of our finest diplomats for his usual tawdry political gain. The USA is entirely within its rights to demand that Sir Kim is replaced, unfortunately.
Interesting post but the last bit doesn't make sense to me. How does ''chaos'' advance Johnson's position and how would he have got his hands on the 'cable'? I'd have thought such communications would be internal (and privileged?) within the CS/FO, with ministers briefed by their CS secretaries but he's not even a minister any more...Anyone who thinks Sir Kim has been "undiplomatic" by conveying his thoughts in private correspondence simply doesn't understand how our diplomatic service works. The key question is who leaked the correspondence, and why. My best guess is that one of Boris' sniveling little ar$e lickers did it, on the basis that chaos works for their proven liar of a leader.
Regrettably, Boris and his bellends have jeopardized the career of one of our finest diplomats for his usual tawdry political gain. The USA is entirely within its rights to demand that Sir Kim is replaced, unfortunately.
As an aside whilst I total understand the need for candid communication, did the Ambassador really need to put “incompetent”, “inept” and “insecure” in official communications? It's hardly fvcking revelatory is it? No one read that and thought, ''Really? Wow. We must brief the minister!''.
However, it was also customary for the ambassador to send a regular cable with his/her impressions. It could be on any number of topics, and it always reminded me of Alastair Cooke's Letter From America. I personally loved reading them, and many of my colleagues also found them to be a highlight of the week. They were opinion-based, sometimes controversial, frequently hilarious, and they were absolutely vital to helping us understand the thinking of our allies, enemies and trading partners.
I think that anybody who has been involved in this kind of diplomatic correspondence will be very disappointed with the security breach, as it's impossible to get candid input unless we can be sure it will remain confidential.
Sir Kim has done the right (and inevitable) thing as he could no longer work effectively in the USA. I imagine he will see out the remainder of the year at the FO - if we're very lucky as a nation, he will be involved in training some of the newest entrants to the Civil Service. The FO (and Jeremy Hunt) did the right thing in backing him, not least to make the point that diplomats have to be candid when they report to their capitals (imagine what most foreign ambassadors are saying about the UK right now!)
As for my point on Boris' crew being the leakers, that's pure conjecture. However, traditionally when a serious leak happens then we look for who benefits. I think that Boris has a similar viewpoint to Trump, that chaos makes him look better because it makes the conventional establishment look worse. I don't think there is any deeper cunning plan beyond that, because Boris has never had a guiding principle beyond his own short-term personal interests.
rfisher said:
I expect that the early resignation didn't affect the amount of his final pension at all.
Which will be enormous.
He probably leaked the emails himself to get out before the summer hols are over.
Trump was no doubt pissing him off.
What is the obsession some PH-ers seem to have with the pensions of people who resign?Which will be enormous.
He probably leaked the emails himself to get out before the summer hols are over.
Trump was no doubt pissing him off.
Edited by rfisher on Wednesday 10th July 16:00
Has he resigned from his post, or from his employment?
Some absolute drivel being spouted in here as I expected.
Is it the ambassadors role to provide the UK government with an honest and accurate assessment of the US president?
Yes.
Did he do that?
Yes.
Who is to blame in all this?
The person who leaked the email.
Will this leak hamper the ability of the next ambassador to give honest assessments of the US president?
Yes.
That is the top and bottom of it.
Is it the ambassadors role to provide the UK government with an honest and accurate assessment of the US president?
Yes.
Did he do that?
Yes.
Who is to blame in all this?
The person who leaked the email.
Will this leak hamper the ability of the next ambassador to give honest assessments of the US president?
Yes.
That is the top and bottom of it.
My bet this was caused by a idiot in government or civil service with Trump derangement syndrome who had access to this information. They thought because it was information from an important respected figure which mirrored and reinforced their own perception of Trump they would leak it without any thought of the consequences.
And then when the media got hold of it they thought the same and ran with it trying to discredit Trump.
And then when the media got hold of it they thought the same and ran with it trying to discredit Trump.
Lord Marylebone said:
Some absolute drivel being spouted in here as I expected.
Is it the ambassadors role to provide the UK government with an honest and accurate assessment of the US president?
Yes.
Did he do that?
Yes.
Who is to blame in all this?
The person who leaked the email.
Will this leak hamper the ability of the next ambassador to give honest assessments of the US president?
Yes.
That is the top and bottom of it.
Spot on.Is it the ambassadors role to provide the UK government with an honest and accurate assessment of the US president?
Yes.
Did he do that?
Yes.
Who is to blame in all this?
The person who leaked the email.
Will this leak hamper the ability of the next ambassador to give honest assessments of the US president?
Yes.
That is the top and bottom of it.
Not-The-Messiah said:
My bet this was caused by a idiot in government or civil service with Trump derangement syndrome who had access to this information. They thought because it was information from an important respected figure which mirrored and reinforced their own perception of Trump they would leak it without any thought of the consequences.
And then when the media got hold of it they thought the same and ran with it trying to discredit Trump.
I'm not sure someone trying to achieve that would be going to Isabel Oakeshott.And then when the media got hold of it they thought the same and ran with it trying to discredit Trump.
Lord Marylebone said:
Some absolute drivel being spouted in here as I expected.
Not-The-Messiah said:
My bet this was caused by a idiot in government or civil service with Trump derangement syndrome who had access to this information. They thought because it was information from an important respected figure which mirrored and reinforced their own perception of Trump they would leak it without any thought of the consequences.
And then when the media got hold of it they thought the same and ran with it trying to discredit Trump.
Uncanny.And then when the media got hold of it they thought the same and ran with it trying to discredit Trump.
Lord Marylebone said:
Some absolute drivel being spouted in here as I expected.
Is it the ambassadors role to provide the UK government with an honest and accurate assessment of the US president?
Yes.
Did he do that?
Yes.
Who is to blame in all this?
The person who leaked the email.
Will this leak hamper the ability of the next ambassador to give honest assessments of the US president?
Yes.
That is the top and bottom of it.
Yep, at the risk of sounding like my parents, I hope Isabel Oakshott is happy with herself.Is it the ambassadors role to provide the UK government with an honest and accurate assessment of the US president?
Yes.
Did he do that?
Yes.
Who is to blame in all this?
The person who leaked the email.
Will this leak hamper the ability of the next ambassador to give honest assessments of the US president?
Yes.
That is the top and bottom of it.
NNH said:
Thanks for your comments, and to those others who've chimed in on this. It's true that my experience at the Foreign Office was over twenty years ago, but I've stayed in touch with people and I don't think procedures have changed very much. Back then, we got a lot of basic facts from our diplomats every day, covering all sorts of things from trade data to changes in government offices.
However, it was also customary for the ambassador to send a regular cable with his/her impressions. It could be on any number of topics, and it always reminded me of Alastair Cooke's Letter From America. I personally loved reading them, and many of my colleagues also found them to be a highlight of the week. They were opinion-based, sometimes controversial, frequently hilarious, and they were absolutely vital to helping us understand the thinking of our allies, enemies and trading partners.
I think that anybody who has been involved in this kind of diplomatic correspondence will be very disappointed with the security breach, as it's impossible to get candid input unless we can be sure it will remain confidential.
Sir Kim has done the right (and inevitable) thing as he could no longer work effectively in the USA. I imagine he will see out the remainder of the year at the FO - if we're very lucky as a nation, he will be involved in training some of the newest entrants to the Civil Service. The FO (and Jeremy Hunt) did the right thing in backing him, not least to make the point that diplomats have to be candid when they report to their capitals (imagine what most foreign ambassadors are saying about the UK right now!)
As for my point on Boris' crew being the leakers, that's pure conjecture. However, traditionally when a serious leak happens then we look for who benefits. I think that Boris has a similar viewpoint to Trump, that chaos makes him look better because it makes the conventional establishment look worse. I don't think there is any deeper cunning plan beyond that, because Boris has never had a guiding principle beyond his own short-term personal interests.
Thank you. It's great when people with genuine experience chip in. My knowledge of the CS begins and ends with yes minister...However, it was also customary for the ambassador to send a regular cable with his/her impressions. It could be on any number of topics, and it always reminded me of Alastair Cooke's Letter From America. I personally loved reading them, and many of my colleagues also found them to be a highlight of the week. They were opinion-based, sometimes controversial, frequently hilarious, and they were absolutely vital to helping us understand the thinking of our allies, enemies and trading partners.
I think that anybody who has been involved in this kind of diplomatic correspondence will be very disappointed with the security breach, as it's impossible to get candid input unless we can be sure it will remain confidential.
Sir Kim has done the right (and inevitable) thing as he could no longer work effectively in the USA. I imagine he will see out the remainder of the year at the FO - if we're very lucky as a nation, he will be involved in training some of the newest entrants to the Civil Service. The FO (and Jeremy Hunt) did the right thing in backing him, not least to make the point that diplomats have to be candid when they report to their capitals (imagine what most foreign ambassadors are saying about the UK right now!)
As for my point on Boris' crew being the leakers, that's pure conjecture. However, traditionally when a serious leak happens then we look for who benefits. I think that Boris has a similar viewpoint to Trump, that chaos makes him look better because it makes the conventional establishment look worse. I don't think there is any deeper cunning plan beyond that, because Boris has never had a guiding principle beyond his own short-term personal interests.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff